Remember the GOP traitors. Surety bonds and every other legal means necessary to remove them from office for betraying their constituents and our country.
Yes the UniParty is, but that will take a long time for people to realize the two sides is fake and just there to make us think our count matters. Division is how they rule. 99% of those in congress are swamp vermin who hang out together, drinking, eating, fucking each other, laughing at us.
When they say "bipartisan", it's a Red Herring because we all know who the usual suspects are, and they're certainly more of a uniparty than either Republican or Democrat.
In other words, the Vice President does have the latitude to reject electors under the law as it is written. If Pence’s excuses contained in his infamous letter were correct, there would be no need to change the Electoral Count Act.
Wrong. The ECA renders the VP to a purely ministerial role. That's what Pence said, which was correct. But the CONSTITUTION itself says no such thing. The problem is the Constitution is silent. Neither gives VP explicit power as judge of legitimacy of Electoral certificates, nor does it render VP solely ministerial. It. Is. Silent. Pence was incorrect about VP actions in election history though. Both Adams and Jefferson did make unilateral "judgements" determining certificate legitimacy. There's little dispute about Adams' action in 1796, as the certificate was in the form required by the Constitution. But Jefferson absolutely made himself president in 1800 when he unlawfully counted GA's certificate, despite it being nothing close to the form required by the Constitution. Problem was nobody really challenged his bullshit move. The issue is that the Constitution is unclear as to VP's power or lack of power. Granted, I would contend such power should NOT exclusively lie with one person. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the Framers. The ECA is right in saying that VP is ministerial, however, that's not what the Constitution says, so it should have to be amended to clarify, rather that federal statute.
The real judges of election disputes, should be, and under the words as written by the Constitution, are the JUDGES... SCOTUS, which in theory, is supposed to be the impartial arbiters of the law.
The ECA itself, has no legal grounds under the Constitution. It need be challenged and struck down. The Constitution needs to be amended, to clarify that the VP does in fact, only have a ministerial role in the election certification process. That's what the Framers APPEAR to have intended, but never made that explicitly clear in the text of the Constitution itself, hence the debate over Adams and Jefferson, and still today.
And if it's not SCOTUS' responsibility to deal with electoral disputes, as currently authorized under the Constitution, then the Constitution must be amended to establish a new proceeds for dealing with disputes and who is to do it.
Save the country? The people would not have woken up with Trump in office. We need the people to awaken to save the country. Pence did the right thing whether he is swamp or not.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm on the side of everyone has had their chance to wake up and letting good people suffer so bad people can wake the fuck up is an awful idea. No one cares if they'd get mad Justice prevailed.
That’s a great way to win a 4 yr election, but a terrible way to save a country. I remember when I said the same thing in 2018. Almost word for word. Boy was I wrong. I thought I knew the extent of it, and then Fauxvid came. We didn’t know the half of it, and I think there’s still more to come. I don’t think we’ve even hit the tip yet. People you never thought would wake and come around, will wake and come around. If you know of another way to save humanity and succeed without anyone suffering, by all means let us know
A couple years ago, a pastor (who is very much a patriot and hates what these people are doing to our country) - reminded us that Jesus could come back at any moment and we begin the final judgement.
He reminded us that we were once unsaved. He asked - how glad are you, who are saved, that Jesus didn't come back the day before you made that life saving choice?
It was a wake up moment for a lot of us - who had the same anger you're expressing - on our minds constantly.
That sort of lesson doesn't make things less irritating. I get where you're coming from. I was fired from a high profile/incredibly competitive position that it took me 10 years to get to - and I was great at it - for simply stating that I would not get the vax when our company returned to in person.
However - the truth of that message remains.
Personally - I turn my frustration into a trumpet of alarm - sounding it to my friends and family in ways that move them closer and closer to waking up. Drop truth after truth - you'll make a bigger difference that way then just being frustrated here!
Without the EC, the 9 states with over 50% of the US inhabitants, would usurp the voices of the other 41. CA, IL, NY, GA, OH, PA, MI, FL, & TX. So, the politics of CA, IL, & NY would run the game.
In fairness, much of the ECA is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution, was there delegated authority empowering Congress to give itself unilateral power to judge the legitimacy of Electoral certificates or constitutionality of state Electoral appointments. JUDICIAL matters are the responsibility of the Judiciary. SCOTUS either by ignorance, incompetence, or reason still unclear, failed to follow the Constitution and do their job. The election dispute is one of a judicial nature. If we the people don't want the Court to exclusively judge, as the Constitution states, then the Constitution must be AMENDED to change the process. An unconstitutional piece of federal statutory law, is a lazy, cheap, exploitable "fix."
Remember Pence's letter? Note, he didn't say he was following the Constitution by only acting in a ministerial position. He said he was following the ECA. Big difference.
Yes, the state legislatures are tasked with the initial "vetting" so to speak. They should resolve disputes before appointing their Electors. However, what happens when the legislatures are corrupt and/or negligent? They don't just get "the final say." 1876 was pivotal in exposing this flaw in the system. Disputes within the state as to their own laws for settling disputes. Is it governor or legislatute or secretary of state with final certification? Incoming or current official(s) who decide? What if the legislature illegally appointed Electors who shouldn't have been appointed? Etc etc etc. The 1876 commission was a novel attempt. Clearly, southern Democrats were guilty of foul play in LA and FL. That had to be stopped. So the solution was the commission. I contend that the commission wasn't necessarily "constitutional" then, nor was the ensuing ECA constitutional. It should have always been Judiciary. Funny thing is, courts ruling on countless election cases. Have for a long time. SCOTUS with dozens of impactful rulings.
The question is really quite simple: who settles disputes over claims of violations of the Constitution? According to Congress, since the ECA, they claim that power for themselves at least within the very specific issue of elections. They are wrong...
Article II Section 1, as altered by the 12th Amendment:
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted
The VP is explicitly tasked with opening Electoral certificates (signed and certified by the Electors, whom we assume were lawfully appointed in accordance with state and federal law, and the Constitution). But the phrasing only implies that the VP does the counting. And what does it mean to "count"? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Count. Tally. Record. If the Framers intended for the VP to have more authority, they would have chosen words like, "inspect", "validate", "reject" etc. Nothing of the sort is mentioned, neither for the VP nor for Congress. The plain text of the Constitution is silent. Hence, the issues in 1860 (all of the Electoral certificates from the 10 states that illegally kept Republican Electors off their ballots, should have been rejected), 1868 and 1876 (contested Electoral appointments).
Congress is indeed the body representing the people, but they are still bound by the law, the Constitution. I'm not saying that they aren't the best entity for settling election disputes, but rather that the Constitution, as currently written, doesn't authorize them with such power. Constitutional questions and disputes are left to the Judiciary to settle. That's explicitly written in the Constitution. If the people think that it should be Congress' duty to investigate, and vote on rejecting potentially unlawful Electoral certificates (basically what the ECA lays out) then the Congress should pass an amendment, and the states should ratify it. They should follow the Constitutional process, as opposed to giving themselves power out of "necessity."
Now, I would still argue that Judges are better suited to settle such disputes, specifically SCOTUS as far as federal elections are concerned. SCOTUS aren't elected. They serve for life. They are supposed to be impartial and apolitical. They are not tasked with creating policy or management of resources etc. They have one job: interpret and apply the law. If there are accusations that state officials violated the Constitution or federal election laws, or even their own state laws, which caused harm towards the citizens of their state, then it's a judicial matter. Congress is a law-MAKING body, not a law-APPLYING body.
The Framers seem to have believed the same as I do and set the system up that way. If the people feel otherwise, then they should encourage their representatives to follow the Constitutional process to makes changes. The ECA was a lazy attempt to bypass the amendment process, even if it was an improved design, much of it was and remains unconstitutional.
Voter manipulation is certainly an issue, a massive one. But here we are simply unable, at least in several states, to provide legitimate counts of purported legally distributed, filled out, returned, and recorded ballots. It shouldn't be hard to determine if a ballot is legitimate, and make a proper count... if we can't figure this basic shit out, how do we expect to seriously deal with media collusion?
On a related note, I once again got a ballot sent to my house for my sister, who has never lived at this address, and hasn't even lived in the state since 2014... we reported it in 2016 and 2020. Clearly, nobody cares that she's still on the voter rolls. These thousands of ineligible, nonexistent ghost voter sit on the rolls, allowing for easy manipulation of reported final ballot numbers...
Again, the issue with "count" is that it's a purely ministerial term and action. Like a cashier "counting" the money in a till after the day's business. But the cashier isn't marking every bill to ensure all are real cash, or confirming with banks that checks are legitimate, and said connected accounts have funds available. At least when they run a credit card, the machine will decline it if the system detects lack of funds. In this analogy, VP/Congress is and always have been a cashier. Investigative and judgement powers lie with the Judiciary. When it comes to federal elections that impact the entire nation, the people must not suffer at the hands of negligent or nefarious Congresses, state legislatures or officials. There must be a check. That check is SCOTUS.
It's harder to prove brainwashing and argue that a vote cast under the influence of manipulation and propaganda is "illegitimate." However, a literal fake ballot, manipulated computer tally, and election law violations (ballot harvesting, ignoring lack of required signatures, ballot theft, issuing all mail in ballots as absentee even though the people don't mean requirements fot absentee, accepting ballots after deadlines, setting up "voter centers" instead of required drop boxes within precincts etc) are all far more easier to identify and objectively prove illegal actions, which constitute fraud.
As if there wasn’t a peaceful transition! We as a people don’t have to accept fraud by por VP, Congressional leaders, elected local officials, interference by foreign countries, pay offs/pay for votes by wealthy. Trump isn’t trying to overturn the election, we are trying to ensure voting is legal, ballot harvesting to drop boxes is disallowed and voter rolls are accurate. There needs to be one person, one vote.
"... a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has been meeting for months to try to agree on a rewrite."
"Besides Ms. Collins, the other Republican members of the bipartisan group backing the overhaul are Senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Todd Young of Indiana.
"In addition to Mr. Manchin, the Democrats are Senators Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Chris Coons of Delaware, Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Mark Warner of Virginia."
What always bothers me is they completely ignore the BLM insurrection. If January 6th was an insurrection, than surely the BLM riots that happened all summer before that was.
IF and I say again IF election fraud is proven then this is an Illegitimate government and anything that they have done in the past 2 years is MUTE and can be reversed! Jus sayin!
Dems are so power mad that they think they can re-write the Constitution itself without following the process for doing so. I'm about fed up with their ignoring laws to invent their own fantasy version.
Remember the GOP traitors. Surety bonds and every other legal means necessary to remove them from office for betraying their constituents and our country.
Hear, hear!
This is getting old, really fast.
You said it, Fren! I'm so, so, so tired of this shit.
MUH DEMOCRACY!!!!!
Yes the UniParty is, but that will take a long time for people to realize the two sides is fake and just there to make us think our count matters. Division is how they rule. 99% of those in congress are swamp vermin who hang out together, drinking, eating, fucking each other, laughing at us.
Yeap they are swamp, how do you think they are financed? By the criminals with money.
Maybe it’s so they can’t make a fuss when Trump gets back in. Maybe?
When they say "bipartisan", it's a Red Herring because we all know who the usual suspects are, and they're certainly more of a uniparty than either Republican or Democrat.
Wouldn’t this prevent Kamala from overturning 2024 when Trump wins again? Maybe we are looking at this backwards.
Susan Collins. VOMIT
Come on Manchin! Do it again! Do the thing again!!!
We must be getting close to full exposure of the fraud — or they think we’re getting close
Communism this way....
Q said "it must be done by the book."
So the Swamp rewrites the book.
And everything they try is repugnant to the constitution. They're just flapping their gums.
But find that their ink is disappearing ink.
Exploit?????? There was a coup. An ongoing coup.
In other words, the Vice President does have the latitude to reject electors under the law as it is written. If Pence’s excuses contained in his infamous letter were correct, there would be no need to change the Electoral Count Act.
Wrong. The ECA renders the VP to a purely ministerial role. That's what Pence said, which was correct. But the CONSTITUTION itself says no such thing. The problem is the Constitution is silent. Neither gives VP explicit power as judge of legitimacy of Electoral certificates, nor does it render VP solely ministerial. It. Is. Silent. Pence was incorrect about VP actions in election history though. Both Adams and Jefferson did make unilateral "judgements" determining certificate legitimacy. There's little dispute about Adams' action in 1796, as the certificate was in the form required by the Constitution. But Jefferson absolutely made himself president in 1800 when he unlawfully counted GA's certificate, despite it being nothing close to the form required by the Constitution. Problem was nobody really challenged his bullshit move. The issue is that the Constitution is unclear as to VP's power or lack of power. Granted, I would contend such power should NOT exclusively lie with one person. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the Framers. The ECA is right in saying that VP is ministerial, however, that's not what the Constitution says, so it should have to be amended to clarify, rather that federal statute.
The real judges of election disputes, should be, and under the words as written by the Constitution, are the JUDGES... SCOTUS, which in theory, is supposed to be the impartial arbiters of the law.
If the ECA says the VP’s role is ministerial, why not a there a need to change it?
Are you perhaps making the error of thinking that these people are acting logically and/or sensibly?
The logical and sensible thing to do would be to repent, retire, and hope to Heaven your ass don't get hung. And even if it does, still repent.
The ECA itself, has no legal grounds under the Constitution. It need be challenged and struck down. The Constitution needs to be amended, to clarify that the VP does in fact, only have a ministerial role in the election certification process. That's what the Framers APPEAR to have intended, but never made that explicitly clear in the text of the Constitution itself, hence the debate over Adams and Jefferson, and still today.
And if it's not SCOTUS' responsibility to deal with electoral disputes, as currently authorized under the Constitution, then the Constitution must be amended to establish a new proceeds for dealing with disputes and who is to do it.
Sorry for the Twitter link, Frens. Nitter was being a pain in the ass.
That's a direct admission that Pence had the authority to save the country and he chose not to (as we all knew).
Save the country? The people would not have woken up with Trump in office. We need the people to awaken to save the country. Pence did the right thing whether he is swamp or not.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm on the side of everyone has had their chance to wake up and letting good people suffer so bad people can wake the fuck up is an awful idea. No one cares if they'd get mad Justice prevailed.
My dumb ass friends and family aren't bad people, they're just woke dumbasses. Stubborn, Woke, Dumbasses.
Fair, that was probably a little too broad of a term to use.
That’s a great way to win a 4 yr election, but a terrible way to save a country. I remember when I said the same thing in 2018. Almost word for word. Boy was I wrong. I thought I knew the extent of it, and then Fauxvid came. We didn’t know the half of it, and I think there’s still more to come. I don’t think we’ve even hit the tip yet. People you never thought would wake and come around, will wake and come around. If you know of another way to save humanity and succeed without anyone suffering, by all means let us know
A couple years ago, a pastor (who is very much a patriot and hates what these people are doing to our country) - reminded us that Jesus could come back at any moment and we begin the final judgement.
He reminded us that we were once unsaved. He asked - how glad are you, who are saved, that Jesus didn't come back the day before you made that life saving choice?
It was a wake up moment for a lot of us - who had the same anger you're expressing - on our minds constantly.
That sort of lesson doesn't make things less irritating. I get where you're coming from. I was fired from a high profile/incredibly competitive position that it took me 10 years to get to - and I was great at it - for simply stating that I would not get the vax when our company returned to in person.
However - the truth of that message remains.
Personally - I turn my frustration into a trumpet of alarm - sounding it to my friends and family in ways that move them closer and closer to waking up. Drop truth after truth - you'll make a bigger difference that way then just being frustrated here!
Much love to you brother!
That is a pearl of wisdom I will never forget. Thank you for sharing.
Then we end up in the same mess 20 years from now because nobody realized what was going on. How do you save a country for 500 years and not 15?
Just wait til the dollar collapse. That should wake up anyone who isn't already, if they don't commit suicide.
Without the EC, the 9 states with over 50% of the US inhabitants, would usurp the voices of the other 41. CA, IL, NY, GA, OH, PA, MI, FL, & TX. So, the politics of CA, IL, & NY would run the game.
I can't wait for the executions to start happening.
I'd gladly donate to have my name etched on to a bullet for the firing squad.
In fairness, much of the ECA is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution, was there delegated authority empowering Congress to give itself unilateral power to judge the legitimacy of Electoral certificates or constitutionality of state Electoral appointments. JUDICIAL matters are the responsibility of the Judiciary. SCOTUS either by ignorance, incompetence, or reason still unclear, failed to follow the Constitution and do their job. The election dispute is one of a judicial nature. If we the people don't want the Court to exclusively judge, as the Constitution states, then the Constitution must be AMENDED to change the process. An unconstitutional piece of federal statutory law, is a lazy, cheap, exploitable "fix."
Remember Pence's letter? Note, he didn't say he was following the Constitution by only acting in a ministerial position. He said he was following the ECA. Big difference.
Yes, the state legislatures are tasked with the initial "vetting" so to speak. They should resolve disputes before appointing their Electors. However, what happens when the legislatures are corrupt and/or negligent? They don't just get "the final say." 1876 was pivotal in exposing this flaw in the system. Disputes within the state as to their own laws for settling disputes. Is it governor or legislatute or secretary of state with final certification? Incoming or current official(s) who decide? What if the legislature illegally appointed Electors who shouldn't have been appointed? Etc etc etc. The 1876 commission was a novel attempt. Clearly, southern Democrats were guilty of foul play in LA and FL. That had to be stopped. So the solution was the commission. I contend that the commission wasn't necessarily "constitutional" then, nor was the ensuing ECA constitutional. It should have always been Judiciary. Funny thing is, courts ruling on countless election cases. Have for a long time. SCOTUS with dozens of impactful rulings.
The question is really quite simple: who settles disputes over claims of violations of the Constitution? According to Congress, since the ECA, they claim that power for themselves at least within the very specific issue of elections. They are wrong...
Article II Section 1, as altered by the 12th Amendment:
The VP is explicitly tasked with opening Electoral certificates (signed and certified by the Electors, whom we assume were lawfully appointed in accordance with state and federal law, and the Constitution). But the phrasing only implies that the VP does the counting. And what does it mean to "count"? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Count. Tally. Record. If the Framers intended for the VP to have more authority, they would have chosen words like, "inspect", "validate", "reject" etc. Nothing of the sort is mentioned, neither for the VP nor for Congress. The plain text of the Constitution is silent. Hence, the issues in 1860 (all of the Electoral certificates from the 10 states that illegally kept Republican Electors off their ballots, should have been rejected), 1868 and 1876 (contested Electoral appointments).
Congress is indeed the body representing the people, but they are still bound by the law, the Constitution. I'm not saying that they aren't the best entity for settling election disputes, but rather that the Constitution, as currently written, doesn't authorize them with such power. Constitutional questions and disputes are left to the Judiciary to settle. That's explicitly written in the Constitution. If the people think that it should be Congress' duty to investigate, and vote on rejecting potentially unlawful Electoral certificates (basically what the ECA lays out) then the Congress should pass an amendment, and the states should ratify it. They should follow the Constitutional process, as opposed to giving themselves power out of "necessity."
Now, I would still argue that Judges are better suited to settle such disputes, specifically SCOTUS as far as federal elections are concerned. SCOTUS aren't elected. They serve for life. They are supposed to be impartial and apolitical. They are not tasked with creating policy or management of resources etc. They have one job: interpret and apply the law. If there are accusations that state officials violated the Constitution or federal election laws, or even their own state laws, which caused harm towards the citizens of their state, then it's a judicial matter. Congress is a law-MAKING body, not a law-APPLYING body.
The Framers seem to have believed the same as I do and set the system up that way. If the people feel otherwise, then they should encourage their representatives to follow the Constitutional process to makes changes. The ECA was a lazy attempt to bypass the amendment process, even if it was an improved design, much of it was and remains unconstitutional.
Voter manipulation is certainly an issue, a massive one. But here we are simply unable, at least in several states, to provide legitimate counts of purported legally distributed, filled out, returned, and recorded ballots. It shouldn't be hard to determine if a ballot is legitimate, and make a proper count... if we can't figure this basic shit out, how do we expect to seriously deal with media collusion?
On a related note, I once again got a ballot sent to my house for my sister, who has never lived at this address, and hasn't even lived in the state since 2014... we reported it in 2016 and 2020. Clearly, nobody cares that she's still on the voter rolls. These thousands of ineligible, nonexistent ghost voter sit on the rolls, allowing for easy manipulation of reported final ballot numbers...
Again, the issue with "count" is that it's a purely ministerial term and action. Like a cashier "counting" the money in a till after the day's business. But the cashier isn't marking every bill to ensure all are real cash, or confirming with banks that checks are legitimate, and said connected accounts have funds available. At least when they run a credit card, the machine will decline it if the system detects lack of funds. In this analogy, VP/Congress is and always have been a cashier. Investigative and judgement powers lie with the Judiciary. When it comes to federal elections that impact the entire nation, the people must not suffer at the hands of negligent or nefarious Congresses, state legislatures or officials. There must be a check. That check is SCOTUS.
It's harder to prove brainwashing and argue that a vote cast under the influence of manipulation and propaganda is "illegitimate." However, a literal fake ballot, manipulated computer tally, and election law violations (ballot harvesting, ignoring lack of required signatures, ballot theft, issuing all mail in ballots as absentee even though the people don't mean requirements fot absentee, accepting ballots after deadlines, setting up "voter centers" instead of required drop boxes within precincts etc) are all far more easier to identify and objectively prove illegal actions, which constitute fraud.
Electoral: Qpost 570?
https://qalerts.pub/?q=Electoral
NCSWIC
As if there wasn’t a peaceful transition! We as a people don’t have to accept fraud by por VP, Congressional leaders, elected local officials, interference by foreign countries, pay offs/pay for votes by wealthy. Trump isn’t trying to overturn the election, we are trying to ensure voting is legal, ballot harvesting to drop boxes is disallowed and voter rolls are accurate. There needs to be one person, one vote.
NYT:
"... a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has been meeting for months to try to agree on a rewrite."
"Besides Ms. Collins, the other Republican members of the bipartisan group backing the overhaul are Senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Todd Young of Indiana.
"In addition to Mr. Manchin, the Democrats are Senators Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Chris Coons of Delaware, Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Mark Warner of Virginia."
So it’s legislation to trash the corrupt voting machines?
What always bothers me is they completely ignore the BLM insurrection. If January 6th was an insurrection, than surely the BLM riots that happened all summer before that was.
I really can't stand the phrase "Here we go".
That's the crap the Gateway Pundit uses.
Good luck with that. These guys are finished and their plans will fail! God wins!!
Remember, they need 60 votes to end debate and bring it to a vote.
Do they?
Ofc the Twitter feed is a bunch of drooling commies
The ONLY way the power returns to the people is if WE TAKE IT!!!
Liberty and tyranny have one thing in common: what is TAKEN is DESERVED
IF and I say again IF election fraud is proven then this is an Illegitimate government and anything that they have done in the past 2 years is MUTE and can be reversed! Jus sayin!
Moot*. As in moot point. Mute is someone who can’t speak.
Is that write, right, rite? Kek
Lulz
Dems are so power mad that they think they can re-write the Constitution itself without following the process for doing so. I'm about fed up with their ignoring laws to invent their own fantasy version.
Wonder who the republicans are.
Well where does the fbi work?